2025:JHHC:28240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 268 of 2024 Upendra Nath Mishra, S/o Late Madan Mohan Nath Mishra, R/o Village-Tati, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilway, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Nandini Singh, W/o Sri Shashi Kant Singh, R/o Village Samlong, Bel Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand 2. Sumitra Devi, W/o Late Bisheshwar Nath Mishra 3. Gouri Devi, W/o Bishwanath Pathak 4. Jagad Dhatri Devi, D/o Late Bisheshwar Nath Mishra 5. Shashi Kumar, Mother of Late Karuna Devi, S/o Shivshankar, All are resident of village Tati, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilway, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Jha, Advocate Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ------ Order No. 07 / Dated : 15.09.2025. 1. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in Original Suit No. 33/2015 whereby and whereunder, the written statement of defendant no.1 has been accepted by condoning the delay of 330 days subject to pay cost of Rs.4000/-. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff has preferred the instant civil miscellaneous petition. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaring that registered Sale Deed No. 15901 executed on 01.10.2007 in favour of defendant no. 1 be declared as null and void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the plaintiff had received this schedule property in a family partition and was in settled possession of the same which has been sold by the co-sharer-Bisheshwar Nath Mishra to Defendant No. 1 (herein O.P. No.1). Defendant No. 2 is the wife of Bisheshwar Nath Mishra. 5. The objection to accept the written statement it is two folds: First is grounded on Civil Court Rules that the petition for condonation of delay as well as for acceptance of the written statement both being rolled 2025:JHHC:28240 into one petition and second is that the prayer is not in consonance with the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2014) 2 SCC 302 Sandeep Thapar Vs. Sme Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It has been held by the Apex Court in this case that at first instance a prayer for extension of time should be made and after the said extension is allowed only then written statement can be accepted. 6. Law is settled that amendments should not be rejected on technical grounds. The proposed amendment even if belated can be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. It has been held in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu & Another, (2002) 7 SCC 559 : 9. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. Such amendments as are directed towards putting forth and seeking determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. In the former case generally it can be assumed that the defendant is not prejudiced because he will have full opportunity of meeting the case of the plaintiff as amended. In the latter cases the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and that shall have to be answered by reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment. 7. Objections raised to the acceptance of the written statement, is not substantial and not how the petitioner is aggrieved by the order. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 15.09.2025 Pawan/ -